Template talk:Infobox
=Documentation= Examples =Discussion= __TOC__ HiddenStructure The hiddenStructure CSS hack has been clearly shown to not work for Lynx, screen-readers for the blind, templates copied to other language wikipedias (where the corresponding style-sheet has not been set up), and other situations. I see no logical reason to continue promoting a bad design. The more pages use this hiddenStructure method the worse Wikipedia will appear to users for whom it does not function. We should be working to limit and undo the damage rather than actively spreading it. --CBD ☎ 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC) :Indeed. Use template:qif which produces decent html until we have conditionals in MediaWiki, as expressed by Brion on WP:AUM. There is no good reason to break screen readers on thousands of pages (for which this template is an example to learn from). --Adrian Buehlmann 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC) I can see the Lynx reader argument. However, the if structure is really messy and hard to follow in general - so I think the hiddenstructure should be used on this example template. This seems to me to be the best solution for "forward compatibility" since the programmers of both Wikimedia and Lynx can use the css designation to fix the problem for users of sreen-readers for the blind. Going back and changing all the existing templates is another (IMO, more complicated) issue. But it seems clear that we should give instructions to users on what generally works now and what will not need to be changed soon. Trödel•talk 19:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC) :I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Why use something that 'generally' works over something that actually works? CSS works for alot of people... but not everyone. QIF, '|if=', and other wiki-markup methods work for everyone. I don't understand what you are saying about 'forward compatibility'... at some hypothetical future point hiddenStructure may actually work for everyone so we should use it now? Not knowing what the future holds it is impossible to say what will actually be 'forward compatible' but it certainly seems far more likely that what works now will work in the future than something which doesn't work currently. As to the 'messiness' of QIF... I don't find it so, but it could actually be made exceedingly simple. There is no reason conditionals couldn't be handled with calls of the form: }|Text to print if 'parameter' is non-blank}}. Far simpler than the equivalent: Text to print if 'parameter' is non-blank. I've been sticking to QIF because most people say it isn't confusing and they prefer it. --CBD ☎ 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC) :: I must admit to some confusion - CSS doesn't work for some - then how are they browsing the internet in general? This is what I thought the problem was - class ="hiddenstructure" ends up not hiding the structure for Lynx browsers so they have to skip over the text that shouldn't be there - which I acknowledge as annoying. :: By forward combatible I mean that the class="hiddenstructure" tags the information in some way that the browser, or the server could be use to hide that information from display to the user. Since the information to be "hidden" is clearly identified through a tag, it can be resolved without editing it again. If on the other hand one uses be shown as one of the examples. —Locke Cole • t • 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) : Your idea presumes that any conditional rows in an infobox is a "good practice". It seems that may not be the case, and I have trouble seeing any consensus being reached as to which conditional method to standardize on. Let's avoid that headache on this page. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) :: Let's not. I believe there's a consensus in favor of showing people the correct way to have conditional rows displayed. Certainly people can standardize easily on because it lacks the accessibility issues associated with hiddenStructure, and it lacks the complexity issues inherent in a forked template design. —Locke Cole • t • 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC) :::Seconded. Let's not. I agree with Locke Cole. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) ::::Thirded. Conditionals are very important in infoboxes. If done right, they make things much simpler for article editors. Crotalus horridus (TALK • ) 08:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) : We should discourage the use of conditionals until there is a better solution. Regardless of which method you prefer - it seems clear that they should be avoided - and new template creators shouldn't thus be encouraged to find ways to use them when a standard template will do. Trödel•talk 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC) :: When a better solution is available we can switch to it, but until that time we would be doing people a disservice to not show them the preferred method of conditional inclusion. —Locke Cole • t • 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC) ::: I totally agree - but why continue to teach new users of templates to use what we know is a flawed system - let them ask someone if they need conditionals. It is a disservice to teach them to use a flawed technique. Trödel•talk 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC) :::: It is currently the only technique available that works correctly. By using , when such a system is in place, we should be able to use to find templates that need to be converted to the new system. Otherwise, we risk editors finding hiddenStructures or other flawed conditional inclusion methods and getting them into widespread use (which would be unfortunate considering the damage they do). I am reverting your removal on these grounds (and on the grounds that at least two others seem to agree). —Locke Cole • t • 04:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::::: But it is ugly and hard to edit (i.e. other then just use). So why should we teach it to new users. I am not advocating using hiddenStructure - only that we should NOT encourage the use of any conditionals. Those that really need them can find the information to use them but to include them here is not useful. And please don't pretend that we have concensus here - there are very few people even discussing this issue. Trödel•talk 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::::::The alternative to using conditionals is using two or more templates where only one is needed. This is ugly, difficult to maintain, and poor technique. We'll have real conditionals in the software soon enough; until then, is the best solution we've got. Crotalus horridus (TALK • ) 06:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) :I just want to ask you guys to settle it, perhaps asking people on other places to comment, we don't want this to becomie a revert war, as some of you are close to 3RR. Please ask on irc, I know some of you have actively participated on metatemplates, booleans, etc discussions, but we should settle first before start reverting. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Stop the revert war, please I'm watching this page, and don't care what the content of the template is... Please stop the revert war or I'll lock it down until you have consensus here. --Syrthiss 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Injecting Sanity I've reverted this to the versions without . To me the reason is simple per AUM and when I'm talking about AUM I'm talking about the section with questions about when a meta-template should be considered and I feel this fails all instances. #''Is the end product essential to Wikipedia, or is it a primarily decorative feature? Meta-templates that are not essential should be avoided.'' #:Pretty clear here, I don't think anyone considers this addition "essential", desirable is an argument but it isn't essential. # Is the template likely to be high-profile? High-profile templates cause more server load, and so are less appropriate for meta-templates. #:Is there a template more higher profile than this one? If there are, you can probably count them on one hand. # Is the desired effect only achievable through a meta-template, or can a template of basically the same appearance be made without them? If the same effect can be achieved differently, even if it is more difficult, a meta-template should be avoided. #:This is clearly being achieved differently and is somewhat more difficult than the QIF option. # Will later editors understand how this works? #:No brainer -- absolutely not. Unless one is familiar with template creation and usage I would say about 98% of the editors have no idea how this works. All of that said, even though I reverted I would encourage this to calm down and be discussed. I see nothing but hostile reverts the past couple of days amongst more or less four people. I see some strikingly hostile ones in there as well. Continued behavior, 3RR or not could lead to more drastic action needed to keep the peace. 3RR doesn't give you license to go and do another 3 reverts the next day, this is not useful or helpful. Answer the issues that need to be addressed and work to achieve a consensus. I've seen "consensus" bandied about here but no discussion to back up that one has been reached. --Wgfinley 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) :You're citing a rejected policy that the lead developer has described as being based on inaccurate concerns. If WP:AUM were accurate and reasonable then you'd have a perfectly valid point. However, since many people do not consider it to be so you need some other basis to be threatening "more drastic action". I could write up a 'Avoid diagreeing with Conrad' essay, but that doesn't mean people have to follow it. :] --CBD ☎ 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::Hmmm, what was that? Oh yeah, I just said something about hostility and reducing it. He didn't throw out the entire guideline, advice, suggestion, what have you. I think these four questions are still well consdidered to be sound reasons when determining if a meta-template is a good idea or not. Perhaps if it failed in one of these areas you could say I'm nitpicking but there isn't a single area that it satisfies. --Wgfinley 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Who's hostile? Your comment about 'sanity' and threats to take action against people disagreeing with you? Ok, maybe a little, but that's ok... I've got thick skin. :] The questions you list are based in large part on the premise that meta-templates are very bad for server load... hence only to be used if "essential". If they aren't bad for the servers then there is no reason to limit them to 'essential' situations. The 'high profile' refers to number of pages linking to it and frequency of viewing... where the theoretical 'server load' issues would be intensified. This page isn't heavily linked or viewed, ergo not a big issue even if there actually were server load concerns. Et cetera. Also, WP:AUM isn't a guideline... it's an essay with no community or developer consensus behind it. Hence my parallel to an 'Avoid disagreeing with Conrad' essay... you can write up a page which says anything. That doesn't mean people should follow it or admins should threaten people for not doing so. At that, I'd wager that 'ADWC' is probably sounder advice than 'AUM'. :] On this issue, I've suggested a possible way to settle this dispute and (hopefully) end the revert wars here and on various other pages over this issue. Comments on the page linked above would be appreciated. --CBD ☎ 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) :Go back and look at AUM, Brion edited the guideline, the "questions" I just cited is still there after his revision which would indicate to me he supports those questions because why would he make vast revisions everywhere else and not there? Nobody just "wrote up" a policy, it originated with what one developer said about it, has been updated with what another devloper has to say and that's what I'm quoting from. As far as "threats" if you want to consider that the threat that is fine, I think edit warring for days on end is the real threat and I'm not the first admin to come in here and say that if it didn't stop something more drastic would need to be done (see the prior heading). --Wgfinley 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::Brion's edit of the page consisted of leaving the page untouched except for adding a big box at the top saying that it should not be policy. Taking that as approval of the 'questions' or any other portion of the content of the page seems unfounded at best. Again, WP:AUM is not a policy. It isn't even (as you keep saying) a guideline. It's an essay written almost exclusively by Netoholic (because most other edits have been reverted out) with no community or developer consensus behind it at all. I agree that edit warring is bad. However, it is the continued pushing of a failed policy proposal which is at the root of the edit war on this and various other pages. Both WP:AUM and this page have been reverted to versions which are founded on a faulty principle (i.e. 'meta-templates cause significant server load problems') and then protected. That is also not a good thing. You continue to quote WP:AUM as grounds for your actions... but the fact is that page carries no weight whatsoever. You might as well be quoting 'The Cat in the Hat'. If you want to take 'more drastic' action I direct you to the root of the disagreement... what valid reason is there for systematically eliminating meta-templates? I don't see one. Anywhere. --CBD ☎ 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::WP:AUM is plain instruction creep: "All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise". Ignore it. It's a red herring. Going willy-nilly killing each meta-template is ridiculous. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::: This is the problem as I see it - there is a very clear difference between 1) removing the use of meta-templates from a template meant to instruct new users on how to create an Infobox, and 2) going through all existing templates and removing meta-templates. (1) is all that wgfinley proposed, but you are countering his proposal with arguments against (2) Trödel•talk 04:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::::So... you won't object to restoring meta features to all the other templates they've been stripped out of. Excellent. Good to know. :] --CBD ☎ 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::::: Frankly I find your disingeniousness to be extremely frustrating. There are two different issues and I am arguing in favor of (1) here; THAT does not imply either an endorsement of (2) nor a repudiation of (2). It is clear that we shouldn't teach new users to use conditionals. (2) is a much more difficult question - and unfortunately it doesn't lend itself to a "do xxxx in all cases" type policy. Trödel•talk 13:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::::::Try 'facetious'. 'Disingenuosness' (in addition to being a personal attack) implies a false pretense to be unaware of the larger picture. I am specifically pointing to the larger picture. Saying, 'we are only talking about this page' and 'this only applies to what we teach new users' ignores that Wgfinley, and Netoholic, and you have made similar arguments on WP:AUM, WP:RFAr, and other pages for how this should apply to other pages and all users. It ignores that templates have been systematically stripped of conditionals. You say, "It is clear that we shouldn't teach new users to use conditionals.", but that is, in fact, anything but clear. Indeed, I and several others disagree entirely. I have seen no compelling rationale for that position. Mind you, if the 'massive server load' or 'very difficult to use' claims were true those would actually be compelling reasons... but they plainly and demonstrably aren't true. So what are we really talking about here? Hypothetical nebulosities and minor inconveniences in the short term while we wait for true conditional logic to be implemented? For this we are trying to 'hide information' from new users and redo dozens (hundreds?) of templates? No, it is needlessly disruptive. --CBD ☎ 14:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::::You're right, there's a difference. But there's also people who will, invariably, wonder how to create conditional paramters themselves, and I believe it's the responsible thing to do to show them the current best method. Otherwise, we risk people learning the incorrect and broken methods Netoholic has pushed for months (hiddenStructure, etc). —Locke Cole • t • 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::::: If they are intelligent enough to properly implement a conditional they will read this talk page and identify several users who can help them. Trödel•talk 13:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::::::That's not an assumption I am prepared to make (and not when the costs are this high). —Locke Cole • t • 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Use of conditionals in infoboxes Note: This has been posted both to Template talk:Infobox and WT:AUM. I've done several reverts on Template:Infobox, and I want to make my own position on the matter clear, rather than just blindly reverting without an explanation. Most of the general talk about "meta-templates" obscures a simple fact. The overwhelming majority of meta-template usages are conditional templates, chiefly , and the overwhelming majority of conditional usages are for one single purpose: to hide empty sections in infoboxes. According to Brion, there is currently work underway to add native support for conditionals into the MediaWiki software; when this is done, it will clearly be the preferred way to do this, and can then be deprecated. Until that happens, though, we need to have a backup plan. There are currently three primary options: #Use qif. #Use the hiddenStructure hack. #Fork a single infobox into multiple templates. (2) is unacceptable because it generates horrendous HTML and breaks some client software, including screen readers. (3) is even more unacceptable because it results in a maintainence nightmare (whenever someone wants to change the base infobox design, they have to remember to do so across multiple pages). Furthermore, (3) places more of a burden on article editors. With a well-designed conditional infobox, empty fields will simply be ignored, so users of the infobox need only omit the parameters that are unused; this is quite intutive. In contrast, forking means that editors must remember multiple template titles and spend time figuring out which one to use. By optimizing for ease of editing on the templates themselves (and, as pointed out above, it doesn't even do that very well) we are hurting ease of editing on articles, which affects far more editors. Therefore, option (1) is the best alternative we currently have. It's not that difficult for an intermediate HTML programmer to understand, and it offers by far the best experience to the article editor and end user - who ultimately must take precedence. This will hopefully all be moot before long, but this is why the references to qif should stay in Template:Infobox. Crotalus horridus (TALK • ) 06:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC) : You are generalizing, and working on a premise that is based on unknowable statistics ("overwhelming majority of meta-template usages are conditional templates"). There is no blanket answer to what the best solution for a template is. The choices are much more complex than Qif vs. hiddenStructure vs. forking. -- Netoholic @ 06:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::Well, OK. In what cases is this generalization not valid, and what other alternatives do you suggest? Crotalus horridus (TALK • ) 07:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :To me the main issue is the importance of the template itself. Instead of creating a meta-template to do this why not an article on how one would do it? And, let's face it, what percentage of editors are even "intermediate HTML programmers"? Secondly, as I stated before, Brion has indicated his general support for much of what is in AUM but didn't like the emphasis on server load being the main issue. That doesn't mean the rest of AUM is bunk. Finally, this comes down to the target audience, I think any editor who would need this template would have little or no knowledge of QIF and would run a far greater potential of screwing it up than any good to be gleaned from doing it this way. It's a cost/benefit issue. --Wgfinley 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::template:qif is easy to use and it will be implemented in MediaWiki anyway so it is a good replacement for that laking MediaWiki functionality for now (no harm to the servers, decent html as opposed to Wikipedia:hiddenStructure). The announced MediaWiki function will have the same ease of use as qif. Do not go and make things like the infobox in Silver, this isn't worth the trouble. If there is anyone who would like to know anything about qif or is not shure how it is supposed to be used, she/he can ask me on my talk. You are always welcome. Once we have qif built in MediaWiki it will be easy to convert the templates to that. It's not a good idea to go like silver just for the interim period. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC) In response to the statements about the horribly confusing and unusable 'qif'... please see the hundreds of templates where qif is/was utilized. Can we toss that argument on the scrap-pile alongside 'server load' now? As Adrian says... we are going to have conditional logic built in. Thus the question is only what to do in the mean-time. We can decrease the accessibility of Wikipedia by using 'hiddenStructure', cause chaos and confusion by splitting templates or otherwise removing conditional logic (which will then need to be put back in), or use parameter switching like 'qif'... and somehow bravely endure the vast and unspeakable horrors of that method - which was used for months without any particularly noteworthy problems whatsoever. Frankly, this ought to be a no-brainer. --CBD ☎ 11:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Possible Compromise In one of his edit summaries, Netoholic stated that this was "Infobox 101" and that conditionals are therefore not appropriate for inclusion here. Well, if that's the case, how about "Infobox 201"? How about if I make Template:Infobox Conditionals, which includes current best practice for empty field hiding, and then include a HTML comment in Template:Infobox stating where to look for information on this? I would just go ahead and do it, but someone protected the page again. Crotalus horridus (TALK • ) 18:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :Yea. Thats not that bad. What about: Template:Infobox qif? But I would accept Template:Infobox Conditionals too. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::If the name includes a specific reference to then it will probably need to be renamed when conditionals are added to the software. So it's better to name it something more generic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • ) 19:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :::Ok. Let's take Template:Infobox Conditionals. Name is not important as it's just an example infobox and not meant to be used for lot of inclusions. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::::I've created the template based upon the disputed template here. As it's meant to demonstrate a more advanced form of template use, someone might want to hack together some additional "advanced" examples. A link from this template to the new template should be created once this one is unprotected. —Locke Cole • t • 03:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC) :Support - in my opinion something like Template:Advanced Infobox, with a link pointing to it on this template, would probably be the best compromise. --Marknew 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :Seems reasonable to me as well. —Locke Cole • t • 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) :If you can make a compromise and that stops the edit war, go for it. >Radiant< 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) :I thought that the compromise meant that Template:Infobox Conditionals should contain a qif only variant and that this here would be reserved for a hiddenStructure example? Think I was wrong, as we now have hiddenStructure and qif together in Template:Infobox Conditionals. Hmm, Just wondering... --Adrian Buehlmann 12:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC) :It appears Trodel and Netoholic are not interested in compromise: with that in mind, neither am I. I am now reverting back to the version with the examples contained in the template directly. Remind me not to be baited into believing these two are interested in resolving this dispute in the future... —Locke Cole • t • 02:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC) :: It isn't all or nothing. If you want to discuss the inclusion of a link to the complex example, then discuss it. Don't destabilize over a minor point. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :::Oh the irony in being accused of "destabilizing" when you and Trodel are the ones who removed the link... mountain out of a mole hill, anyone? —Locke Cole • t • 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :::Ok, how about this: something I've put together very quickly, so may need to be rephrased. Would this solve the edit war? :::*Template:Infobox Conditionals: Advanced techniques for hiding fields in infoboxes - Note: This infobox contains some extremely complicated and esoteric features of template syntax. Having experience in advanced template syntax is recommended before implementing infoboxes using these techniques. ::: --Marknew 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC) ::::It's kind of redundant I think: the whole point of the seperate template was to be a place for people to go to get experience with advanced template syntax. I'm not rejecting it entirely, I'll wait and see if anyone else chimes in (other than Netoholic and Trodel), but it just doesn't seem like we should be warning people away from learning more complicated syntax. —Locke Cole • t • 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Help? Not sure if this is on-topic but I tried to use Template:Infobox on another wiki and it doesn't work at all. I copied over some of the supporting templates as well. Could I trouble anybody to tell me what I've done wrong? See it here... Takipedia:Template:Infobox. Thanks, The Crow 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC) :You also need to define Template:Qif (just copy and paste the code from this site). However, if you don't want conditional rows (hidden when there is no data entered), then you can just remove the Data 4 and Data 5 lines from the infobox code. --Marknew 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC) :There are a number of problems. The 'infobox bordered' class is not defined on that Wiki, the 'noinclude' and 'includeonly' tags don't seem to be recognized, and conditional parameters ( }) do not work. Any parameter with a pipe ('|') is evaluated as text. Most likely the Wiki is using an older version of MediaWiki software which doesn't support conditional parameters. This will prevent any sort of conditional text template from working. --CBDunkerson 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks to whoever fixed it up (guessing it was CBDunkerson). It is MW version 1.4.3, is that new enough to support conditionals? Also, where and how do I define the 'infobox bordered' class? The Crow 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC) :::Unfortunately were implemented in MW version 1.6. The various 'infobox' classes for Wikipedia are defined at MediaWiki:Common.css. They could be done at the CSS page for each 'skin' (MediaWiki:Monobook.css and such), but anything defined at 'common.css' applies to all skins. --CBDunkerson 20:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC) ::::It's not so unfortunate, at least I have a reason for the behavior, a way to fix it, and a good excuse to upgrade. I'll try it. I am a little concerned as I had already swiped MediaWiki:Common.css so I think the absence of 'infobox bordered' shouldn't have been a problem, yet you say it was... is there more to installing Common.css than just replacing my existing one, or can 1.4.3 just not handle this class no matter what? The Crow ::::: The usage of Common.css isn't in the stable MediaWiki versions, it's only on the pre-alpha 1.6 used on Wikipedia, just like the default parameter ability. You'd have to put the code in Monobook.css and the other skins. -- Netoholic @ 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC) I tried pasting the code into my own wiki here, but the borders and background aren't showing up right. I dug into the page here and found that it was calling the infobox style class, which mysteriously is not in the commonPrint.css stylesheet. Anyway, I found the style definitions on Mediawiki and pasted them into the commonPrint.css stylesheet on my own site, but it's still not working. The only difference I'm noticing is that the wikipedia pages are calling commonPrint.css?11, while mine is calling commonPrint.css?9. Is this the problem? If so, how do I change that? If not...? thanks, matt :Ah, problem solved. I hadn't copied the infobox class definitions to my monobook/main.css stylesheet. --matt Protected I have protected this page until an actual compromise can be reached so the edit warring can stop. Please talk nicely among yourselves to work something out. JtkieferT | | ---- 08:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Compromise As stated well above, the compromise was to move the complex code to Template:Infobox Conditionals. I see absolutely no reason for us to abandon that. -- Netoholic @ 08:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :Agreed. So why did Trodel and you abandon it? —Locke Cole • t • 08:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :: (I'm not sure how to phrase this well, so here goes...) What the fuck are you talking about? You're the only one re-inserting the complex code into this template. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) ::: Please mind your civility. After seeing the compromise reverted twice (once by Trodel, and then immediately by you), it became blindly obvious to even the most optimistic that you and Trodel had zero intention of abiding by the compromise people agreed to here. As the compromise was gone, so also was any "cease fire" regarding the allegedly complicated code from being in the page. (And if you're going to revert to your "favored" version, I'll revert to my "favored" version; the one with the conditional examples in THIS template and not shuffled off to another template to be lost by anyone really interested in learning how to do it). —Locke Cole • t • 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Stacking and aligning multiple template boxes Editors of Saint Louis, Missouri would like to use Template:Quotebox to place directly under Template:Infobox City, and I've tried several ways to accomplish this, to no avail. How is it done (if it is possible)? Alternatively, it could be placed inside city infobox, but I'm not sure that is possible or desirable, or how to do it, if it is. Evolauxia 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC) : It is possible by adding a style "clear: right;" to the quotebox; unfortunately, doing so hides the "edit" link to the History section underneath the city's infobox --Millbrooky 05:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :: We auto people have been using an invisible table for this. See Jeep Wrangler for an example using Template:Infobox Automobile and Template:Infobox Automobile generation and not messing up the edit links. Note that if anything happens to fall under another thing on the right and intrudes on a heading, the edit boxes start stacking up. So you have to be careful beyond templates. You could always use __NOEDITSECTION__ but I hate that... --SFoskett 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Unprotect? If there are no objections I will unprotect this page so that it may be converted to the new 'built in' m:ParserFunctions method of performing conditionals. I think at that point we can also delete Template:Infobox Conditionals as redundant. --CBDunkerson 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC) TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Conditionals Template:Infobox Conditionals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Marknew 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC) :Listed on deletion review, because the premise of the Tfd is no longer true (it was "only" redirected and not deleted, nevertheless the Tfd was invalidated by later events here). -- Omniplex 20:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Straw Poll I restored protection on the page because there is apparently still a dispute about what it should contain. Let's see what the general consensus of opinions is. --CBDunkerson 20:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Please state your preference: :Basic Only :The 'Template:Infobox' page should be for very basic infobox design only. It can include table markup and single level optional parameter evaluation, but no other features. Other infobox features may or may not be discussed in sub-pages such as Template:Infobox Conditionals. :# :Common Features :The 'Template:Infobox' page should provide examples of common features that are likely to be used in many future infoboxes. This can include m:ParserFunctions and whatever other methodologies are frequently used in infoboxes. :# This should definitely document #if at a minimum, otherwise we'll end up with stuff like the Mtnbox series of templates (see WP:MFD/QIF). —Locke Cole • t • 21:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC) :#Per Locke Cole. It is better to construct one adaptable template per subject area than several templates that must be called in a certain order. — TKD::Talk 07:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC) :# :Other :Please describe what you think the page should contain. :# Alternative text for images I want to add an "alt text" parameter for infobox images, but I'm not sure of the syntax. Is } going to do it? I want it to use the "alt text" if specified, failing that the "caption", failing that the article name. (In most cases, there is no reason for the image to have a caption, or any alt text beyond the article name.) —wwoods 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Help with Infobox template I hope this is the right place to put this. I have a wiki and I tried to add the infbox, but this is what happens when I try? http://www.akussapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Infobox Could someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanx a bunch! :This template is not an actual usable 'infobox', but rather an example of how infoboxes are built. See Category:Infobox templates for various usable infoboxes or for a customizable single infobox. That said, the reason this box does not display the same way on your wiki is due to CSS definitions. For example, the first line references a CSS class called 'infobox bordered'... which is defined at MediaWiki:Common.css. If you don't have the same CSS class definition on your wiki then it will not display the same way there. --CBD 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC) titling There have been many issues with the generic format of a title outside the actual infobox, both in terms of styling and, more importantly, readability. Many browsers (including mine) have a tendency to allow the infobox to overlap the title, in particular when the title wraps onto a second line or is in a larger font. Due to the relatively widespread nature of this issue, many individual infoboxes have made a simple change to the script so that the title is incorporated within the infobox itself. There are hundreds of examples, but , , spring to mind. When incorporated into the infobox as in these examples, the wrap/overlap issue ceases to be a problem. To cut a long story short, I would like to suggest implementing this minor edit in this, the root infobox template, so that there can be a standard that definitely renders correctly for all Wikipedia users. Bearing in mind, of course, that this is not actually changing anything of substance, but using a simple solution to solve a fairly widespread problem. Basically, in standardisation with the above and tonnes of other infobox templates (that have reliable viewing properties!), I'd suggest the following opening lines of script, to produce the below: }} |- | colspan="2" style="font-size: smaller;" | } |} Given its implementation in many templates, it already has some degree of support, but in order to tackle this issue properly it should really be tackled from the top downward. DJR ([[User talk:Djr_xi|'T']]) 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC) ::I have made the edit above based on no dissenting opinions. Obviously it's perpetually open for discussion, being a wiki and all that... DJR ([[User talk:Djr_xi|'T']]) 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :I wonder if anyone has a technical solution to the problem that might be hard-coded to fix all the other infoboxes using the out-of-box style? Mrsteviec 08:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Opera The infoboxes aren't showing up correctly in opera, since a couple of hours ago. Maybe it's just my computer, but if someone could check this out, I'd appreciate it. - Peregrinefisher 22:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)